maxomai: dog (dog)
Wherein "We Hunted The Mammoth" warns us about the latest phenomenon in disgruntled manhood: arguing that rape is justified. TW: everything.

Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] manboobz_rss at “Philosophy of Rape” site argues that “whores and feminazis need to be put in their place through ra

rape-culture1


 


Last year, I wrote about a repellant little “community” on Reddit: the PhilosophyofRape subreddit, devoted to promoting what it called the corrective rape of “filthy, unmitigated, sluts … [t]hat badly need to be punished. Badly.”


Reddit being what it is, the subreddit remains up to this day. And now the folks behind it have taken their repugnant “philosophy” to the web. Earlier this week, one of the subreddit’s numerous moderators, a veritable cauldron of bigotries who calls himself European88, announced the grand opening of a new Philosophy of Rape website. He urged his fellow “philosophers” to “[s]ubscribe and submit your rape tips … !” 


Like the subreddit before it, the site declares war on “harpies,” “hussies,” “[d]ecrepid filth, dressed like hookers and reaking like vodka” and “Belligerent. Entitled. Selfie taking, Tindr-whoring, Teenage-walking-herpes-sores.”


The “philosophers” also take aim at “vain, vile, venemous, femenist, filth,” particularly


[t]he kind who get conferences to talk about mens suicide rates shut down. The type of hussies who have lobbied effectively to remove due process from proceedings against men on college campuses.


In  a post titled “Why is Rape Necessary,” the site sets forth its case for “correction.” (I’ve bolded the worst bits.)


1) Rape did serve important, healthy, and natural biological purposes historically in limiting the extent to which female bad behavior can go.


2. Women in many ways are like children, and most can not self-regulate very well, so in the absence of something like parents or a natural limiting force like rape, they just run amok and destroy their selves and everything they touch.


3. Because rape is so completely arm-barred back by the state, and feminism has grown to be this infestation that caused even the social consequences for female behavior to dissappear, we find ourselves in a precarious situation. Unbridled female sluttishness, entitlement, narcissism, vileness and destruction gone viral.


4. Such women need to be Corrected. Humbled. Brought back down to a healthy place and realistic mindset. For their own good as well as that of those around them. That particular corrective action is quite clear, the one that used to naturally limit the behavior: rape.


5. We are here to provide encouragement and advice how to do that and do it safely. Regression analysis to find out which variables make it less likely to get into legal trouble. Very few women report the rapes, what can you do to make it even less likely? Example: remind the victim that “no one will believe them”. When they orgasm (which is actually very common during rape, Google it) speak up and let them know that you are aware of it and that it will come out during trial if they reported it.


Yes, that’s right. After complaining that the feminist “infestation” has enabled “unbridled” female awfulness by drastically reducing the “natural limiting force [of] rape,” the rape “philosophers” acknowledge that most men who rape women face zero consequences for their action. Indeed, in another post, one “philosopher” declares that


We want to teach men that although it may be easier than ever for an innocent man to be convicted of rape when a consensual partner has buyers remorse, it’s also easier than ever for a guilty man to get away Scott free – so long as it’s done the way we advocate: actual rape-rape, as in dark-alley, ski mask, stranger rape.


Emphasis mine. Some of the rape “tips” offered on the site are wholly unoriginal:


Tell the harlot that you come from a rich family and that she will never successfully convict you of raping her in court.  Tell her that, if she tries to sue you, you will counter-sue for a huge amount of money that will bankrupt her.


Pretty sure that one’s been used before.


Tell the harlot that, if she tells the police about the rape, you will kill her entire family.  If she has children, tell her that you will rape her children before killing them.


That one too.


Other tips are little more than sadistic fantasies:


Put sugar into the harlot’s vagina to give her a yeast infection.  This will be a mark of shame on her that she will be unable to forget, and she will have to relive the rape every time she seeks treatment for it. …


After raping the harlot, steal her clothes and write “WHORE” on her chest with a red marker.  She will be forced to walk around naked with “WHORE” written on her chest, and it will be extremely humiliating for her.


Whether these rape “philosophers” are actually living out their repellant philosophy, I couldn’t tell you. They insist that they’re quite sincere.


Indeed, in a posting on slutHATE, one rape “philosopher” assured skeptics that


The Philosophy of Rape is as serious as a heart attack. We are a movement of angry, fed-up men – much like you – who have decided to take matters into our own hands. The simple fact of the matter is, simply sitting around and complaining about sluts on the Internet isn’t going to change anything. We need real-world action to correct the slut problem. That’s why The Philosophy of Rape was created. Sluts need real-world punishment, and we want to train an army of holy warriors to dish out that punishment. Your chances of getting caught are already slim, and we will teach you how to make 100% sure that you don’t get caught. 


In another comment, he reported that while


I can’t openly admit to how many harlots I’ve corrected, but let’s just say that I do indeed practice what I preach.


He offered this lovely bit of advice to anyone thinking of following in his (alleged) footsteps:


It definitely helps if you build up to the act. Keep edging closer and closer to rape until you’re finally ready to do the deed. For example, send a harlot an anonymous message telling her you’re gonna rape her, then write “HARLOT” on her car, then finally rape her when the moment is right. Build up your courage by first committing smaller acts.


He urged others to take up his peculiar fight for, er, justice:


We are going to build an army of holy warriors to correct harlots and feminazi whores around the world. All it takes is a few Elliot Rodger types to get the ball rolling. What do you have to lose? Enlist in our rape army today, and we will teach you how to correct a new harlot a week and get away with it.


Apparently unafraid of legal consequences, the person posting all this gave what he said was his real name, claiming to be “Brother” Dean Saxton, a campus “activist” of sorts who several years ago caused a stir after holding a one-man protest at the University of Arizona, holding a sign reading “You Deserve Rape.”


In another thread, “Brother Dean” explained why he felt this slogan was so effective in angering feminists: .


NOTHING pisses off feminazis more than reminding them that they are filthy harlots who desperately need to be – and, deep down, WANT TO BE – raped.


He went on to explain why the kind of rape he advocates is the most public-spirited of all the different varieties of rape:


N*ggers rape because they are feral animals who cannot control their primitive biological urges. We rape because we are holy warriors on a mission to correct harlots and purge society of unmitigated female entitlement. The Philosophy of Rape is, ultimately, about fixing society. The only way to correct harlots and feminazis is by raping them.


If “Brother Dean” is European88, he’s kept himself busy since his college protest as a moderator of 157 of Reddit’s most loathsome subreddits, including /r/CoonTown, /r/WhiteRights,  /r/nazi, /r/GasTheKikes, /r/Chimpout, /r/StormfrontForums and the lovely /r/N*ggerSafari.


Some of the slutHATE regulars dismissed “Brother Dean” as “disinfo” and “just another frustrated virgin in his basement spreading shit.” frenchy91, for his part, noted that


while i really don’t give a shit who you could rape as long as it’s not my girlfriend, nor familly member, i think you op should get raped by a group of n*ggers, just to know how it feels, then you could objectively speak about who diserve it or not. for now, you just sound like a desperate mysogincel


This is apparently what passes for a “moderate” position on slutHATE. Others there found Brother Dean’s message inspirational. A commenter calling himself mvp wrote that


i definitely support this movement


its time to fight back


“Fuck it,” wrote another. “I’ll rape a bitch for you.”


It would be easy enough to dismiss all of this as nothing more than the ridiculous fantasies of “frustrated virgin[s]” or the work of trolls. I really hope that’s all it is.


But we should remember that slutHATE is essentially a reincarnation of PUAhate, an online forum that was frequented by a young man named, yes, Elliot Rodger, who posted similarly hateful and similarly implausible-sounding comments there before setting out one evening a little over a year ago, intending to “slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut” in a popular sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


H/T — MoonMetropolis


 


maxomai: dog (dog)
As of this writing, Leelah Alcorn's family has held her funeral service, and have taken down her Tumblr page (as is their right -- she was a minor). However, nothing disappears forever on today's Internet. You can find her archived Tumblr here, including her final apologies and her suicide note. It should be noted that, while I sympathize with her pain, I disagree with her reasoning. I have many friends who made the transition as adults in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, and lived great lives in their new gender. IMO, her suicide was unnecessary and tragic.

I am not reposting this to condemn her parents --- at this point, they're basically powerless, and there's no point in me picking on them. I am posting this in order to point out that there exists a cultural divide that makes national consensus on gender, race, and sexual orientation, basically impossible. This is going to take a fight, and it's going to get ugly.




Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] lovejoyfeminism at Leelah Alcorn and Evangelical Storytelling

Over the past week, I have processed Leelah Alcorn’s death as yet one more tragic story of what can happen when transgender teens are denied access to the care they need. Leelah’s parents were conservative evangelical Christians, and when Leelah told them at age 14 that she was transgender, they responded very badly. Leelah tried coming out as gay instead in order to ease people into it, but her parents responded by cutting her off from her support network, opting to homeschool her. On December 28th, Leelah walked in front of a truck.

This story has affected a lot of people I know, especially LGBTQ individuals who grew up in evangelical homeschool families. But as I was thinking about the story again yesterday, I took a moment to consider how evangelicals will interpret Leela’s death. I was raised evangelical myself, and have often dug into evangelicals’ views on LGBTQ issues here on my blog. What struck me as I thought about Leelah’s death is that even as LGBTQ activists (including myself) place blame on evangelical teachings about gender and sexuality, many evangelicals will place the blame on LGBTQ activists.

As I was putting this post together, I scoured the internet for evangelical articles on Leelah’s death, but did not find any. It may be that the articles are yet to be written, or it may be that evangelicals are sitting this one out. Either way, what follows is based on my understanding of overarching patterns in evangelicals’ approach to LGBTQ suicides and support groups. If anyone has come upon evangelical articles on this story in particular, feel free to leave a link in the comments.

Many evangelical Christians view transgender individuals as degenerate and dangerous, a view perhaps best summarized in Michelle Duggar’s robocall last summer portraying transgender individuals as child predators. But there are also many evangelicals who see transgender individuals as “confused and hurting people” who need salvation through Jesus and Christian counseling to steer them toward satisfaction in their “god-given” genders and gender roles.

Perhaps you are wondering why this matters. On some level, it does not. These evangelicals too would see transgender teens like Leelah denied access to LGBTQ support groups and forced to attend various forms of “reparative” counseling. These evangelicals are just as much responsible for Leelah’s death as are those who view transgender individuals as dangerous predators. But on another level, it does matter.

I would love to be able to flip a switch and bring transgender individuals national acceptance and support, but I can’t. Instead, the fight for transgender rights and acceptance is a long, slow battle that still has quite a way to go. If we want to understand it is so difficult to bring change on an issue that to so many can seem so simple, we need to understand how individuals who oppose transgender rights and acceptance interpret tragedies like Leelah Alcorn’s death.

To those of us who support transgender rights and acceptance, what happened to Leelah seems straightforward. Guided by their religious beliefs, her parents refused to accept that she was transgender and instead isolated her from her LGBTQ support network and took her to counselors who told her that the body dysphoria she felt—and who she believed she was—was disordered and against God’s plan. But for many evangelicals, what happened fits into an entirely different narrative.

Let’s look just for a moment at LGBTQ suicides in general. LGBTQ activists (including myself) understand the high gay teen suicide rate as a result of bullying and a lack of acceptance. The thing is, evangelicals are aware of the high gay teen suicide rate as well, and while some may rub their hands in glee at the number of gay teen lives lost as a result of bullying etc., many others have a different explanation for the number of gay teen suicides itself. They argue that it is being gay that leads to the suicides, completely irrespective of bullying or anything else.

Here is an excerpt from a post I wrote on this topic two years ago (emphasis added):

To evangelicals, the problem is gay activism. These teens, evangelicals argue, committed suicide not because they were bullied or made to feel worthless, but rather because they were gay. Being gay is a “destructive lifestyle” that leads to high suicide rates, spiritual darkness, devastating diseases, and, finally, death. The solution is not to validate these teens’ “homosexual temptations” as gay activists would. The solution is not to tell these teens that “this is how you are and you can’t change” but rather to work to change these teens so that they can live long happy godly lives.

Many evangelicals aware of Leelah’s suicide will likely believe that it was telling Leelah Alcorn that being transgender was natural and okay that was the problem—and that what Leelah needed was Jesus, Christian counseling, and fellowship with believers. The idea is that if no one had encouraged Leelah by giving her the idea that being transgender was a thing, she would have been able to listen to and follow the guidance of her pastor and parents, and, ultimately, would have become comfortable with the gender she was assigned at birth.

In other words, evangelicals who hear of the story will interpret what happened to Leelah in a way that is completely upside down from everyone else.

Why does this matter? Quite simply, because the narratives evangelicals have constructed can make them impervious to being moved by even the most tragic case. What we see as clear and obvious evidence that transgender teens need acceptance and support they see as clear and obvious evidence that transgender activism ends lives. This is one of the things that makes progress on this issue so difficult—and that is why it matters. It is these narratives we must dismantle and deconstruct if we are to ever reach a point where transgender individuals are accepted as whole and healthy instead of derided as disordered and sinful. We have work to do.

And with that, here’s to Leelah, and making a difference.

Leelah Alcorn

maxomai: dog (dog)
From Portland, OR NBC affiliate KGW:

A Supreme Court Justice asked to put a halt to Oregon's same-sex marriages has requested that litigants in the case to present briefs to him by Monday at 1 p.m. before making a decision.

The request signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may get involved in Oregon's battle over gay marriage.


My best guess is that the Supreme Court will decide that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) doesn't have a leg to stand on. Still, here we go again.....
maxomai: dog (dog)
Quoting the LA Times:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will make a statement Wednesday evening about a controversial piece of legislation that would give more protection to businesses who cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve gays and others, she announced.


There's enough weasel words there so that one might expect Brewer to make no announcement whether she'll veto the bill or not. Nonetheless, I'd expect her to announce that she'll veto. Pretty much the entire GOP establishment has given her barely enough cover to veto the bill and survive a primary challenge.
maxomai: (typewriter guy wtf)
Whooooooah

A federal judge has struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, saying it is unconstitutional.


This is Utah we're talking about. To give you an idea of how conservative Utah is, Mitt Romney got three times as many votes as Barack Obama in 2012. And while the state has a libertarian streak, it's mostly because they don't trust government power after the way the LDS was treated. You'd better believe that there's a lot of Utahns who are freaking out right now.

Edit Same-sex marriage licenses are being issued in Salt Lake right now. The Mayor just married two lesbians. Meanwhile the Governor blasted the ruling and the Attorney General is filing for an emergency stay pending appeal.
maxomai: dog (dog)
CNN has the scoop:

In 2009, the non-profit Naz Foundation won a verdict from New Delhi's high court after a seven-year legal fight to decriminalize homosexuality. ... The High court ruled in Naz's favor. But the decision came under fire from Christian, Hindu and Muslim groups, who filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.


And today, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that India's anti-sodomy law was Constitutional, and that it was up to the legislature to decide whether it should stay on the books.

My bet is that the legislature will overturn the law, in an attempt not to look as unenlightened as Russia. Still, not a pleasant day for gay rights in India - or for your new-age friends who are convinced that Hinduism is somehow more tolerant than American hard-line Protestantism.
maxomai: dog (dog)
The anti-gay Oregon Family Council apparently decided that Oregon United for Marriage is likely to not only get their get their initiative to legalize same-sex marriage in Oregon onto the 2014 ballot, but is likely to win that election. To fight back, they have submitted a proposal for an initiative that would allow businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian weddings. ThinkProgress has the scoop.

The language of the initiative reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if doing so would violate a person’s deeply held religious beliefs, a person acting in a nongovernmental capacity may not be:

(a) Penalized by the state or a political subdivision of this state for declining to solemnize, celebrate, participate in, facilitate, or support any same-sex marriage ceremony or its arrangements, same-sex civil union ceremony or its arrangements, or same-sex domestic partnership ceremony or its arrangements; or

(b) Subject to a civil action for declining to solemnize, celebrate, participate in, facilitate, or support any same-sex marriage ceremony or its arrangements, same-sex civil union ceremony or its arrangements, or same-sex domestic partnership ceremony or its arrangements.


Ostensibly, this stems from two incidents where Oregon bakeries (Sweet Cakes and Fleur Cakes) refused service to lesbian couples who wanted cakes for their weddings. (Same-sex marriage is presently illegal in Oregon, but legal just across the Columbia River, in Washington.) The couples filed complaints with the State that the bakeries violated Oregon's anti-discrimination law, which says, among other things, that a public business cannot refuse service to LGBT customers. Sweet Cakes responded by shutting its doors and moving to a private kitchen, probably so they would no longer be a public business.

On the face of it, this initiative is intended to shield Christian businesses (such as bakeries) from having to compromise their beliefs and serve same-sex couples. There are two other intentions here that are less obvious:


  1. Rally support against the Oregon United for Marriage initiative. It's not just enough to say, "we're against this." They also have to frame this as a fight to prevent real people from real harm. Like it or not, being forced to choose between your business and your religious beliefs is a compelling story of victimhood.

  2. Rally support against Senator Jeff Merkley. He's up for re-election in 2014, at the same time that both this initiative and the Oregon United for Marriage initiative should be on the ballot. He was also critical in passing SB2, which became the Oregon law banning LGBT discrimination. This initiative helps to frame the case for defeating him in the next election.



I have no doubt that the Oregon Family Council measure will make it to the ballot. Oregon's liberal, blue-state reputation comes mostly from the Portland metro area and Eugene. Outside of those areas - including in Salem - it's more like Idaho. Ergo, there's certainly enough signatures to qualify the initiative. Whether it will succeed in the polls is another matter. It's not just anti-gay bigots who are going to vote for this measure, but also libertarians who don't want the State telling bigots that they have to violate their morals or close their businesses. Oregon doesn't have enough of the religious right to pass this measure, but it could have enough libertarians to pass this law. Those same libertarians, by the way, are likely to also vote for the same-sex marriage statute. The principle in both cases is that government shouldn't be the arbiter of moral behavior.
maxomai: dog (dog)
maxomai: dog (dog)
maxomai: (mouse)
The BBC has good news on the horrendous "Death Penalty for Gays" bill in Uganda. Quoting:

A committee of Ugandan MPs has endorsed the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill but dropped the death penalty provision, an MP has told the BBC.

MP Medard Segona said "substantial amendments" had been made to the bill but said he was not allowed to reveal further details.


So, to recap:

  • This anti-gay bill is still horrendous, and still expected to be passed by Christmas.

  • It looks like the death penalty components are out, thank the stars.

  • That said, we still don't know what's actually in the bill, because it's undergoing revisions.

  • By the way, the headline going around the social media claiming that the bill's been passed is not accurate. (cf. this blog post)

  • We still have a chance to stop this moronic, superstitious legislation, by applying public pressure. One measure we can take is to sign this petition. If you're in the US, add a note that you will pressure your Congressmen to cut off all foreign aid to Uganda if this bill passes.

maxomai: dog (Default)

Oh, this is rich. Quoting The Advocate:


As momentum continued to build toward “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal this year, a desperate Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council played to homophobic fears and said that ending the policy could prompt troops, especially racial minorities, to leave, thereby necessitating the reinstatement of the draft.


This, of course, is a direct contradiction of the Pentagon’s own study on the matter.


Someone here is just making shit up. Anyone want to take bets?








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

Oh, this is rich. Quoting The Advocate:


As momentum continued to build toward “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal this year, a desperate Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council played to homophobic fears and said that ending the policy could prompt troops, especially racial minorities, to leave, thereby necessitating the reinstatement of the draft.


This, of course, is a direct contradiction of the Pentagon’s own study on the matter.


Someone here is just making shit up. Anyone want to take bets?








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

Go to this website: http://bit.ly/djxmd7


Call these numbers! Particularly, make sure you call Harry Reid, Carl Levin and John McCain! Don’t forget that McCain himself supported DADT repeal before he was against it!








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

Go to this website: http://bit.ly/djxmd7


Call these numbers! Particularly, make sure you call Harry Reid, Carl Levin and John McCain! Don’t forget that McCain himself supported DADT repeal before he was against it!








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

Just when I thought the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was dead, the White House does the right thing in order to keep their hope of undoing DADT “the right way” alive:


“The White House opposes any effort to strip ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (repeal) from the National Defense Authorization Act,” said Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director.


This gives us a small window, rapidly closing, to push Congress to keep the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal alive. You (yes you) need to call your Senators now at 202-224-3121 and tell them that you oppose any attempt to strip Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from the Defense Authorization Bill. If you don’t know who your Senators are, go to Congress.org and find them. It doesn’t matter what time it is — leave a message. If the voice mailbox is full, call one of their field offices. It doesn’t matter, either, if they’re screaming blue liberals or raging red conservatives — call them anyway.


In addition, make sure you call each of the following Senators, even if they aren’t yours:



  • In Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R)

  • In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D)
  • In Illinois, Sen. Mark Kirk (R) [He will be a Senator as of Thanksgiving. Details here.]

  • In Indiana, Sen. Richard Lugar (R)
  • In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins

  • Also In Maine, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe

  • In Ohio, Sen. George Voinovich (R)

  • In Virginia, Sen. Jim Webb (D)

  • In West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D)


You can get their contact information here. Don’t worry if they’re not yours — the faster their voice mail boxes fill up, the better.


Yes, I think the faster way to get rid of DADT is to let the 9th Circuit Court decision stand. But we need to advance on any front we have.








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

Just when I thought the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was dead, the White House does the right thing in order to keep their hope of undoing DADT “the right way” alive:


“The White House opposes any effort to strip ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (repeal) from the National Defense Authorization Act,” said Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director.


This gives us a small window, rapidly closing, to push Congress to keep the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal alive. You (yes you) need to call your Senators now at 202-224-3121 and tell them that you oppose any attempt to strip Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell from the Defense Authorization Bill. If you don’t know who your Senators are, go to Congress.org and find them. It doesn’t matter what time it is — leave a message. If the voice mailbox is full, call one of their field offices. It doesn’t matter, either, if they’re screaming blue liberals or raging red conservatives — call them anyway.


In addition, make sure you call each of the following Senators, even if they aren’t yours:



  • In Alaska, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R)

  • In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D)
  • In Illinois, Sen. Mark Kirk (R) [He will be a Senator as of Thanksgiving. Details here.]

  • In Indiana, Sen. Richard Lugar (R)
  • In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins

  • Also In Maine, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe

  • In Ohio, Sen. George Voinovich (R)

  • In Virginia, Sen. Jim Webb (D)

  • In West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D)


You can get their contact information here. Don’t worry if they’re not yours — the faster their voice mail boxes fill up, the better.


Yes, I think the faster way to get rid of DADT is to let the 9th Circuit Court decision stand. But we need to advance on any front we have.








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

I hope this report is just being pessimistic, but I probably hope in vain. Quoting The Advocate:


Over the weekend, observers of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate began cautiously acknowledging that an effort is in the works to potentially move a stripped down version of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act that would exclude repeal.


A person close to the process said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is looking into a deal with Sec. Gates that would cut ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ out of the Defense bill in order to smooth its way to passage.


“Levin is making calls under the premise – we can’t afford to waste time on a controversial provision, so we’ll strip out the controversial provision and be able to get the bill on and off the floor in the available amount of time,” said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.


If this is true, then the key component of Obama’s “doing it right” Rube Goldberg Machine — a repeal effort approved by Congress — is not going to materialize. Ergo, the best shot we have as a nation to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is in the lawsuit being prosecuted by the Log Cabin Republicans. You know — the one the Obama administration is fighting against, because using the courts is some how not “doing it right.”


Yes, the President can claim, and truthfully so, that the Republicans are one of the chief obstacles in repealing DADT. But the other chief obstacle right now is the President’s own administration, and everybody knows it. All he has to do is get out of the way and DADT is done. If he fails in his promise to repeal DADT by the end of his administration, the President has nobody to blame but himself.








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

I hope this report is just being pessimistic, but I probably hope in vain. Quoting The Advocate:


Over the weekend, observers of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” debate began cautiously acknowledging that an effort is in the works to potentially move a stripped down version of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act that would exclude repeal.


A person close to the process said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is looking into a deal with Sec. Gates that would cut ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ out of the Defense bill in order to smooth its way to passage.


“Levin is making calls under the premise – we can’t afford to waste time on a controversial provision, so we’ll strip out the controversial provision and be able to get the bill on and off the floor in the available amount of time,” said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.


If this is true, then the key component of Obama’s “doing it right” Rube Goldberg Machine — a repeal effort approved by Congress — is not going to materialize. Ergo, the best shot we have as a nation to get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is in the lawsuit being prosecuted by the Log Cabin Republicans. You know — the one the Obama administration is fighting against, because using the courts is some how not “doing it right.”


Yes, the President can claim, and truthfully so, that the Republicans are one of the chief obstacles in repealing DADT. But the other chief obstacle right now is the President’s own administration, and everybody knows it. All he has to do is get out of the way and DADT is done. If he fails in his promise to repeal DADT by the end of his administration, the President has nobody to blame but himself.








Originally published at maxomai.org

maxomai: dog (Default)

“Show me what you’ve done, and I’ll tell you what you believe.”


It took the White House 48 hours to confirm what I pretty much expected: the Obama administration is going to appeal the DADT ruling from earlier this week.


Not to worry, though, DADT foes. The President assures us that this is part of the process; that DADT will end on his watch. His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, tells us that it’s not a matter of when, but how, DADT ends. And they assure us, through all of this, that the process that they set up to end DADT — which involves a bureaucratic-and-legislative-inside-straight-ultra-fatality-combo of a favorable Pentagon review and then passage of a defense authorization bill that includes language repealing DADT — will ultimately succeed in this goal.


Uh huh.


Let’s forget about what the President says. Look, instead, at what he’s done. If he wanted to get rid of DADT, he had (and still has) the perfect opportunity. He’s throwing it away. The plan he’s proposing that we trust in its place has about a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. Do you think, based on this, that DADT is going away during his administration? I don’t. I think that, barring a Supreme Court decision putting an end to DADT forever or a national outpouring of outrage on the scale of the Tea Party, we’re looking at eight years of excuses followed by a shrug: “we tried.”


Let me suggest that his actions tell us what he believes. The President doesn’t want to get rid of DADT; he wants active oppression of homosexuals in the military to remain policy. The question is, why? Is it because his control of the Pentagon is weak, and he has to bend to the wills of the homophobes in order to achieve his foreign policy goals? Is it because he doesn’t want to alienate African-Americans, many of whom are very culturally conservative, and who constitute his most loyal base? Is it, perhaps, because he really thinks that discriminating against homosexuals is a good policy?


I’m asking because I believe that the answer to this question determines how we need to conduct this fight. And we who believe that DADT is bad policy do have to fight.








Originally published at maxomai.org

Profile

maxomai: dog (Default)
maxomai

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
171819202122 23
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 06:02 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios